Design: grenades

In WW II two types of explosive grenades where used. "Defensive" grenades (fragmentation) and "offensive" grenades (concussion).

Defensive grenade where design to open ground while offensive better suited for closed environment (trenches houses).

Imo one could better implement it in also in the game.

Defensive grenades could stay as they are.

Offensive grenades could have lower damage but do extra damage against units in cover or garrison while they could have a large area where they could prevent enemy infatry from moving so that they could not jump in and out of houses.

Incendiary grenades DOT could also do more secondary explosion doing more damage to units in garrison (damage all in hold) so that where worked better denying garrison.

Have you played the recent SP and have you had a look at what is already in the game in terms of garrison denial and grenades?

Have you played the recent SP and have you had a look at what is already in the game in terms of garrison denial and grenades?

I have breach which I can not say I liked.

Imo it would be more interesting if possible to have troops fight in CQC for houses.

What parts of the breach mechanic did you not like?

What parts of the breach mechanic did you not like?

It one sided and the out comes predetermined. That mean that in urban environment faction with breach will have a clear advantage.

But this is not just about garrison but also heavy cover. In many cases it better to stay in heavy and take the damage than risk to dodge and take more damage in the process.

Specialized grenades imo would add utility to infatry and add to game play.

It one sided and the out comes predetermined. That mean that in urban environment faction with breach will have a clear advantage.

Would you rather have a random element instead of a pre-determined outcome for the breach element as it was in the game that you have played? The feature, as it was in the SP, was meant to give the US faction a choice for finding solutions using an advantageous ability as an alternative to chucking grenades. There is an element of risk to the ability after all, and it is very similar to units flanking an MG that is not in a building.

Would you rather have a random element instead of a pre-determined outcome for the breach element as it was in the game that you have played?

I would rather have a CQC inside the building where one could some control over the out come.
For instance an SMG unit would perform better than bolt action unit.

The feature, as it was in the SP, was meant to give the US faction a choice for finding solutions using an advantageous ability as an alternative to chucking grenades. There is an element of risk to the ability after all, and it is very similar to units flanking an MG that is not in a building.

Imo abilities are a good way to designed the game (and they should be more, for instance for SMG troops) but not ones with that "I press a button I win a fight" logic.

Can you describe how you think the breach ability should work then? Try to keep it within the context of what you have played in the SP.

Can you describe how you think the breach ability should work then? Try to keep it within the context of what you have played in the SP.

One could have the assaulting unit "enter" the building and the two squad fight in CQC according to their weapon profiles.

Both player should be able to "retreat" from the fight from within the building at their will.

Since the engine probably does not allow both squad to occupy the same building at the same time one could create the illusion of that by replacing the building with icon indicating the combat and just doing the calculating

*the assaulting unit "enter" the building and the two squad fight in CQC according to their weapon profiles.

*create the illusion of that by replacing the building with icon indicating the combat and just doing the calculating

I see that you are passionate, but I must admit that I feel that removing player control over combat in SP and replacing it with an abstract statistical comparison may not come across as very much player engaging.

I see that you are passionate, but I must admit that I feel that removing player control over combat in SP and replacing it with an abstract statistical comparison may not come across as very much player engaging.

It does not have to a "statistical" fight, I would rather see it as fight within the building but since I have no idea what the engine of COH3 allows (for instance is plausible to allow 2 squad of opposing player to occupy the same building?).

If it does not allow it one could try to bypass the engines limitation by having the fight in other place outside the "visible map" and determine as any other fight.

Honestly I think that the whole idea behind breaching is a SP gimmic which if kept will be either removed from MP or nerfed into being useless. On paper it sounds cool like a coldtec, but even its unfinished concept brings more questions then its answers in regards of how to balance it out.

What relic should have done, is just make a proper damage multiplier against units in building.

Right now I belive squad inside the building takes damage according the model placement inside the building, but what should have been done is to just create multipliers against super small\small\medium\big\huge buildings to minimize the RNG and create predictable result.

Breching on the hand sounds like it suppose to counter early game garrison rushes, which sure it will do, but its not taking into the considiration anything past mid game, where additional support units are awaible. Mortars for instance, even in CoH2 its super easy to smoke garrason and get close for a nade. With breaching mechanic you always will be garanteed to do it if smoked.

This leads to the fact that you would have to instanly leave the garrasion if you are smoked and you know enemy squads are comming, since you will end up with your squad wiped via breach. And if breaching is nerfed, then what the point of ususing it over regular nade throw to begin with?

Aswell as squads inside the garrision being breached were unable to leave the garrasion during the breaching, which is idiotic at best and should be removed. And if its removed, then what the point of breaching since your squad will be locked in the breaching animation and you already spent muni on it, meaning that regular nade throw would have been better option at least because its cheaper and doesnt requare your squad to get into close range.

Other than the fact that fragmentation grenades were and are not strictly "defensive" even in WW2 I agree that concussion grenades should return to coh3.

comments on breaching

What about if breaching was less about instant damage but more about forcing an enemy out of a building?

Hear me out here; the breaching ability basically becomes this:

You pay muni to "breach" the door and enter into close range with the enemy. There is no special damage incurred to the enemy besides what would normally be dealt to the enemy at point blank range. The enemy is not forced to be inside the building with you except for (maybe) a second or two so that the breach wasn't a complete waste of munitions. Then the enemy can decide to leave the building or stay and fight it out.

This way, it's not an instawin button against garrison troops.

Other than the fact that fragmentation grenades were and are not strictly "defensive" even in WW2 I agree that concussion grenades should return to coh3.

This is just a general term being used and it does not mean they can be used on defense only:

Fragmentation (defensive)
Show Spoiler


High explosive (offensive)
Show Spoiler

What about if breaching was less about instant damage but more about forcing an enemy out of a building?

Hear me out here; the breaching ability basically becomes this:

You pay muni to "breach" the door and enter into close range with the enemy. There is no special damage incurred to the enemy besides what would normally be dealt to the enemy at point blank range. The enemy is not forced to be inside the building with you except for (maybe) a second or two so that the breach wasn't a complete waste of munitions. Then the enemy can decide to leave the building or stay and fight it out.

This way, it's not an instawin button against garrison troops.

I am actually not a big fan of the mechanics which includes any CQC fighing inside buildings (while realistic, I dont belive it will be good for CoH gameplay), but I agree with you regarding breaching being more of a force enemy out of the building rather then being damaging tool.

I would rather see breaching being cheaper and over-all weaker then the regular nade throw, but if breached enemy squad should be forced out of the building and maybe have some sort of "stunned" debuff, while breaching itself should deal more of a static damage being like 25-40% of garrisoned squad HP.

In this case it would allow it to maintain original idea behind it (being a way to deal with early key point garrisons) while also there would be a clear distinction: want to deal more damage? Throw nades. Want to force out enemy out of the building? Use breach.

But still what really concerns me - pottentual no brainer abuse. Since, alright garrisoned MGs are cancer in CoH2 on some maps, but when non MG unit uses garrison its somewhat alright. So what if you just managed to garrison lets say 2 squads in different buildings and enemy is just blobing on you with 4 squads.
Nothing really stops him to pretty much deny you your garrisons and better prepared possition with just 2 breaches, almost instanly. I mean sure, you might lose this engagement even without breaches, but they are allow your enemy not only save him MP (since he would have lost more models fighting off garrisoned troops) but more importantly - time. Engagements which might have take 30-40 seconds, now only takes lets say 10-15.

At this point it would have been easier for you to just stay in green cover and avoid buildings completly, since with breaching its actually easier for the enemy to deal with garrisoned troops, then with the ones who are just stay in green cover.

Garrisons are already kinda a grey area zone. Game impact they have is directly tied up with map desing, number of windows, directions of mentioned windows, size of the building and so on. Breaching brings the idea of buildings being something so strong that game needs additional mechanic to counter them, while in reality they are 100% situational and map dependant.
Realistically if mappers didnt slap huge full-HP church in a key areas or buildings near enemy cut-offs, then there would have been no need to moan about early game garrison rushing. I mean sure, when the we place super strong building, in a super strong possition then no wounder it will be hard and frustrating to deal with.

What parts of the breach mechanic did you not like?

I personally did not like it as well.
One click ability to wipe a squad? The defender's only chance as of pre-alpha is to just leave the building, there is no real decision making, no back and forth.
It's good that Relic looks into options to dislodge garrisons, but not like this... As Vipper, I'd also rather have a CQC combat mechanic within the same building. At the most basic (and boring) implementation, breach could be an ability to negate the defenders garrison bonuses, basically like the point blank mechanic in CoH2, just for garrisons.

Breach is clearly for singleplayer experience only, so it's fine for what it does.

Breach has great animations and looks nice. But I can not see how it can work in current form in multiplier so I do not think it very relevant in this debate.